Marine Transportation System

Archive for the ‘Federal Government’ Category


Happy National Public Works Week…or Not

In Federal Government, Politics on March 31, 2010 at 7:52 pm

The press release on the committee website speaks of a “slap to the face” by House Republicans delivered to “thousands of public works professionals across the nation.”

House Republicans Oppose Honoring Public Works Professionals; Republican partisan politics sink National Public Works Week resolution heads the release.

These days in Washington partisan shots and tiffs are so commonplace as not to be worth noting.  But since this appeared on the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee website I thought it worth a brief mention if only to confirm what we already know.  Nowadays even a committee known for bipartisan cooperation is a meeting ground for campaign year smackdowns.

It’s not that disagreements and raised voices are unknown in this committee.  Put Davis-Bacon on the table and you’ll see party and regional differences.

During this 111th Congress the economic stimulus measure–the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or ARRA–was the high profile target of the GOP leadership and it continues to be.  And given how politicized it has become for all we know the subject resolution may have been a Democrats’ set-up for their Republican colleagues.

During the brief floor debate on House Res. 1125 the ranking Republican on the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, John Duncan of Tennessee, spoke in support of the resolution and called on his colleagues to vote for it.   And why not?  This is apple pie on the legislative menu.

Sometime after Duncan’s remarks and the vote taken later that day someone higher up the Republican ladder must have read the resolution.  The word went out –Republicans should vote no.  Which is what they did, Duncan included.

All but one Democrat–Gene Taylor of Mississippi–voted for it.  Not the two-thirds affirmation required under the fast track “suspension of the rules” the 249 to 172 vote was insufficient to pass the resolution.

The release from Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) explained* that the GOP leaders opposed the resolution because of favorable references to ARRA.  You know–projects started, jobs created.  So the word went out. Vote no.  Probably the decision was made even easier as the resolution sponsor and floor manager was Rep.Tom Perriello (D-VA), a very vulnerable and GOP-targeted freshman Democrat.   (*There is no mention of this matter on the minority’s website.)

This year even the 50th anniversary of National Public Works Week is something to disagree over.    Pbea

, , , , , ,

Toward Developing MTS Related Policy

In Federal Government, Leadership, MTS Policy, Surface Transportation Policy on February 15, 2010 at 1:07 pm

Sitting the USDOT leadership in front of an audience has become a bit of a tradition each January.   Most of the brass, sans Secretary LaHood, appeared en panel at the recent TRB annual convention.  The policy and modal chiefs offered brief overviews as to what is on their plates.  Here are notes from two that have particular relevance to MTS related policy.

Under Secretary for Policy Roy Kienitz covered the big item — the next surface transportation authorization bill.   This year the Secretary’s office will pull together recommendations for the Obama White House to consider in preparing a package for Congress.

Roy stated the vision:  A renewed sense of strong federal leadership in transportation centered on meeting national needs.

He defined national needs: safety, state of good repair, economic competitiveness, livability, and environ sustainability.

The department’s priorities: organizing programs around those needs and recommending ideas to congress.

The challenges he described:  getting Americans excited about the vision and finding a politically acceptable way to pay for it.

David Matsuda, the Maritime Administration’s acting Administrator, is awaiting Senate confirmation.  He offered his take on what is what is driving the need to develop a vision for the marine transportation system as it applies to nation’s economic competitiveness.

The Panama Canal widening has the potential to significantly alter land and water routes.  Add to that potential changes relating to the use of the Suez, an Artic route, etc.    In short, we’re facing a whole new freight delivery market.

The Federal government must play an active role such as help “coordinate” investments in port access and intermodal connectors.  Few studies and data are available.  MARAD is commissioning a study to fully explore the impacts of a widened canal on our transportation system.

David said the study outcome is expected to shape national policies and help assess the capacity of channels, connections, etc.  He spoke of the need to factor in the capacity of port terminals and landside connections, the ingenuity of port authorities and terminal operators, and the competitive measures Canada and Mexico ports will take.  To understand how fuel prices affect freight economics.   And to identify marine highways to relieve surface congestion and move goods in a more energy efficient manner on the water.

There’s work to be done at the Department of Transportation.  And plenty reason for the freight community to plug into it.   Pbea

, , , , , ,

The Next Maritime Administrator

In Federal Government, Leadership on January 27, 2010 at 11:50 pm

David Matsuda –the President’s pick to serve as Maritime Administrator–is ready to serve.

He returned to familiar turf this week when he appeared at his nomination hearing.  He worked for the same committee that will be voting on his nomination.  His work in the Senate had to do with railroads, ports, transit, trucking and aviation.  He worked for a senator whose state’s second largest employment sector is logistics and which is host to the New York Harbor and Delaware River gateways.

Since mid 2009 David Matsuda has been running the Maritime Administration as the top political appointee at the modal agency.  He has the confidence of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood who first knew him as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy.

Importantly for MARAD–and for the marine transportation system–he has knowledge and experience to help shape a new transportation policy for the administration to recommend to Congress.  That transportation policy has to include, for the first time, a national freight policy.  And by rights it should put the marine transportation system squarely in that policy.

David Matsuda’s prepared statement for the hearing was brief and straightforward.  He reminded the committee that the “impacts of our nation’s maritime industry are not limited to coastal states.”

“Items brought in by ship make their way to store shelves and factory lines throughout the nation. Some raw materials we mine, goods we produce, and agricultural products we grow for export leave through our seaports or travel down rivers or across great lakes to distant markets.  In all, 36 states have a maritime port—whether it’s on a river, lake, gulf, or ocean. Merchant mariners live in just about every state in the Union, and midshipmen nominated by you and your colleagues to study at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy can claim home to all but one state. Some states have shipyards or marine manufacturers which can be the largest sources of jobs in an entire community or region.”

He noted acknowledged the challenges.

“Today’s industry is struggling with many tough challenges: a lagging economy, climate change, the threats of invasive species, piracy and other security issues, a greatly expanded Panama Canal opening in 2014, and an aging workforce, to name a few.”

One of the challenges facing the next Administrator is to make something of the marine highway program.  It is just getting started.  With no assurance of a reliable funding stream for the program, MARAD–hopefully with strong support from the Secretary’s office–will have to make the most of its modest resources to develop a credible and creative program that will be central to MARAD’s mission for many years to come.

“I feel my experience working within the federal government, and especially working in the Senate, has allowed me a broad understanding of how these challenges can be approached successfully: by working with all stakeholders in good faith and with transparency in decision-making.”

We wish him well.    Pbea

, , , ,

Vision Ingredients (Part 1)

In Federal Government, Leadership, Surface Transportation Policy on November 28, 2009 at 8:19 pm

Thinking of George H. W. Bush can conger up a few unfortunate (for him), lasting images. For me it’s the former president’s food judgments (pork rinds good/broccoli bad), his unfamiliarity with the price of  milk, and Dana Carvey’s exaggerated but dead-on impersonation.  Then there was, “oh, the vision thing.”  It sounded like he thought it a useless factor in governing–perhaps more so than he may have intended–but it stuck.

As a practical matter civil servants and political appointees often aren’t given the time to engage in “visioning”. Sometimes when it is done it can amount to little more than a facilitated exercise.  But what may seem like a luxury, or a waste, arguably is essential for a new administration and even newly sworn congressional leadership.

At USDOT some part of a vision is in place, though I don’t know how much is the result of planning or predisposition.

The two elements of an Obama transportation vision that I can identify are high speed passenger rail and livable communities.  The first is courtesy of President Obama himself.  In an out-of-the-blue moment earlier this year the White House said the economic stimulus package being written in Congress must include billions to start a high speed rail program.  (It was one of a few Obama “musts” in a measure that was mostly dismissed by Republicans as a “Pelosi” bill.)   The rail piece was the president’s vision, and an inspired one to be sure.

The second quickly became a regularly voiced theme by Secretary Ray LaHood and his policy staff.  It suits an administration that is oriented toward energy conservation, the urban environment and, not to be forgotten, the voting pedestrian/commuter.  Does it qualify as vision?  I think so.  It’s more than a policy view because a livable community objective could transform urban and town landscapes and it entails a broad range of policy solutions.

Meanwhile a more complete administration surface transportation policy is still in the cooker.  Congressional committees are wondering what and when policy recommendations for a successor to SAFETEA-LU will emerge from USDOT headquarters.  Perhaps no sooner than mid 2010.

Vision and policy are not synonymous.  One can have a new vision, and implementing policy, for passenger rail while maintaining a decades-old freight policy.  Somehow that doesn’t sound like this administration.

It’s one thing for the recent Bush administration and Secretary Mary Peters to articulate a scant administration view  about transportation that amounted to little more than less Federal government, more State responsibility, and greater private sector financing and management.  It made for a transportation policy only a Cato could appreciate.

But we might reasonably expect more from Messrs Obama and LaHood given the administration’s expansive environmental and energy view.  Transportation’s role in addressing those issues is significant and goes beyond putting passengers on trains and encouraging transit use and bicycling.

So here’s the question: What is the total vision that will steer administration action and guidance to congress over the next three, maybe seven, years?  Will it be more than passenger rail and livable communities?    Pbea

, , ,

The Connective Tissue of a Nation

In Federal Government, Infrastructure on November 17, 2009 at 4:13 pm

You can’t thrive as a nation while New Orleans is drowning…and cities in upstate New York and the Rust Belt are rotting from lack of employment opportunities, and so on.   Imagine, instead, an America with rebuilt, healthy, dynamic metropolitan areas, and gleaming new port facilities, and networks of high-speed rail, an America with electric vehicles and a smart grid and energy generated by the power of the sun and wind and water and the ocean’s waves. (“What the Future May Hold”, November 17, 2009)

Bob Herbert of the New York Times has penned several columns about our crumbling infrastructure. How many times can writers like Herbert belabor the point?  Not enough.

Eugene Robinson of the WPost:  It’s unrealistic to think this disaster is going to spur the nation to seriously address all its infrastructure problems. We’ll talk about the issue for a while, then go out and buy another TV. But we can—and should—at least do a more rigorous inventory and identify the structures that pose the most peril. Yes, it’s boring stuff to even think about. But just look at the alternative. (“Back to Basics”, August 2, 2007)

David Brooks of the NYT:    In times like these, the best a sensible leader can do is to take the short-term panic and channel it into a program that is good on its own merits even if it does nothing to stimulate the economy over the next year. That’s why I’m hoping the next president takes the general resolve to spend gobs of money, and channels it into a National Mobility Project, a long-term investment in the country’s infrastructure. (“A National Mobility Project”, October 31, 2008)

Thomas Friedman of the NYT:  Look in the mirror: G.M. is us.  That’s why we don’t just need a bailout. We need a reboot. We need a build out. We need a buildup. We need a national makeover. That is why the next few months are among the most important in U.S. history. (“Time to Reboot America”, December 23, 2008)

Brooks and Friedman wrote on the eve of the new Administration and the writing of a stimulus bill by Congress.  Some small part of the “recovery” package  signed by the president was in the spirit of rebooting, as Friedman suggested, but it was too little.  The Obama Administration talked in vision terms but didn’t press for vision-scale action by Congress.

At this point–nearly a year into Democratic control of Washington and millions of  job losses later–an infrastructure policy is being talked about only in oblique terms, as “Stimulus II” or, by those who are fearful of  the spender label, the non-stimulus stimulus.  And as helpful as that may be for purposes of creating some jobs  it doesn’t substitute for an infrastructure policy.

So shall we primly, safely wait for Federal accounts to come into balance, saying we can’t afford it, while developing and developed nations on other continents propel themselves into economic vitality with steel, wind turbines, and fiber optics?  Consider what can be accomplished by putting money–yes, borrowed money–into real, decades-lasting, efficiency-producing, capacity-building, economy-stimulating, pride-inducing public works and critical infrastructure.

For all their faults the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration of the 1930s strengthened our nation in lasting public works, a strong sense of conservation, and nation-building spirit.  As if to prod us into action some of the glorious thirties era infrastructure that has not been well maintained is visibly deteriorating.

Bob Herbert: Consider transportation. As Brookings tells us, “Other nations around the globe have continued to act on the calculus that state-of-the art transportation infrastructure — the connective tissue of a nation — is critical to moving goods, ideas and workers quickly and efficiently. In the United States, however, we seem to have forgotten.”

Pbea


, , , , ,

Ports on the Secretary’s To-Do List

In Federal Government, MTS Policy on November 8, 2009 at 11:49 pm

The DOT Secretary’s blog–Fast Lane–noted this past Thursday that “port managers have a difficult dual mission to fulfill-–providing the critical interface between water and surface transportation, while handling both commercial and military cargo.”  The prior day he met with the National Port Readiness Network, including some port representatives.

Secretary Ray LaHood acknowledged in his blog that that dual mission “is much easier said than done. ”  “And I get that only the commercial side of their mission provides the ports compensation.”  He said “DOT wants to do all we can to help them meet these obligations.”

Back in March when Secretary LaHood addressed the spring meeting of the American Association of Port Authorities he was asked from the floor what the new administration was thinking in the way of a freight policy.  The cabinet member said his department had yet to give it attention, that implementation of the stimulus package was USDOT’s  immediate focus, and toward the end of the year he may convene stakeholders to start to develop a perspective on freight.

It sounds like he is ready to act on that idea.  In recent weeks he indicated to Kurt Nagle of the AAPA that USDOT will call port directors together for purposes that include an examination of freight issues.  The plan is to have a meeting–perhaps in New Orleans–this coming January.

He noted in this blog of November 5th two action items–a “port summit” and “a Presidential initiative to integrate planning” with DHS.

The former appears to be focused on the port authorities–the public agencies with port jurisdiction.  A government to government conversation makes sense.   But will the Secretary at some point also enlist the private sector side of the ports–the terminal and vessel operators–in a confab to examine freight issues?  And will this be the start of a concerted effort in the Secretary’s office to develop an overdue Federal freight policy?

The latter is a reference to a $15M item in the current year budget–also in the Senate version of the DOT appropriations bill.  “This will help develop and modernize the freight infrastructure that links coastal and inland ports to highway and rail networks,” LaHood said in the blog.  We’ll have to wait and see how that  intention will materialize in actual projects.  Earlier this year MARAD folks said that some or all of it may be applied to marine highway initiatives.

We’ll see how these two items on the Secretary’s to-do list develop.  In the mean time it’s good to know that Secretary LaHood wants to listen to the ports and focus some resources on the MTS.   Pbea

, ,

Let’s Hear It For Congress

In Federal Government on October 2, 2009 at 11:51 am

At risk of speaking too soon and jinxing the whole thing…  A toast to Congress!

This time next week Congress should complete action on the Energy & Water Development Appropriations for FY 2010 (HR 3183).   With any luck the funding bill for the Federal water resources and energy programs will be approved by the Senate next week and become law just a couple weeks past the start of the fiscal year.  (We may even hear popping corks from within Capitol Hill locker rooms.)

Well, yes, nowadays we do set low the bar for achievement in Washington.  But that is not to diminish the significance of a job completed.

Just a few decades ago our Federal government started the fiscal year with enacted appropriations measures–one produced by each of the appropriations subcommittees.  But that is a distant memory.  Instead Continuing Resolutions (CR) by which Congress gives itself more time to finish bills and ensure government doesn’t grind to a halt now are predictable fixtures in appropriations sausage-making.  Same for “omnibus” spending measures into which congresses loads all incomplete funding bills as a last, exhausted effort to get the job done.

What’s the big deal about meeting the fiscal deadline?  Well, besides clearing the legislative calendar for other pressing issues, there is the matter of how well government functions and the ripple effect on lower levels of government and the entities whose programs,  projects, and budgets depend on that Federal money and its timing.

In the case of the E&W bill, Corps of Engineers commercial navigation, flood control and other projects involve public agency partners and private contractors.  If the Corps doesn’t have a clear funding signal from Congress contracts  and other work are delayed.   If it is a dredging project, factor in whether the project is in a region where the construction season is limited by weather, and if there are additional calendar restrictions based on aquatic critters mating habits, etc.  There are many more practical considerations, of course.  The end results are heightened costs and delayed benefits for all involved.

In the past seven years the E&W bill was completed by the October 1st deadline zero times.  It was delayed anywhere from one to six months.  In  FY 2007 Congress just gave up and adopted a full year CR, with all its attending disruptions to projects and programs.

So, let’s acknowledge Congress for getting the E&W bill done.    A toast!    Pbea

, , ,

Report on Freight Funding Policy

In Federal Government, Infrastructure on September 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm

The TRB has a new report that is worth a look:  Funding Options for Freight Transportation Projects. The study committee was charged with examining the rationale for public investment, evaluating financing strategies for “freight transportation projects of national significance,” assessing the ability to use criteria  in project selection,  and evaluating and comparing “generic financing options…based upon the greatest net benefit and least cost per public dollar invested.”  Here is a summary of the broad categories of recommendations along with a sampling of specifics:

  • Federal freight infrastructure assistance programs should adhere to certain guidelines. Project earmarking “weakens the effectiveness” of programs; any program should be structured to address freight projects on a case-by-case basis and be “flexible to address diverse assistance needs.”
  • Create a new discretionary assistance program to support freight projects, starting with a “test of the need for and value of a responsible and flexible federal program…” The “test” would be $1.8bn over 4-6 years and an independent evaluation to determine the program’s worth.  Note: the program outlined in the report is in many ways similar to the multimodal “TIGER” grants USDOT was charged with administering in the economic stimulus bill enacted last February.  Applications are due Sep15 and selected projects announced in Feb.
  • Make credit assistance more accessible and attractive to freight projects that merit Federal support. Includes revisions to TIFIA; encourage private sector participation by changing tax laws to be “neutral with respect to private versus public management” and finance “the kinds of facilities that commonly are built by the public sector.”
  • Reduce barriers to the development of local and facility-specific revenue sources to pay for freight infrastructure capital costs and provide incentives to encourage use of such sources. Enable port authorities to impose cargo charges “for purposes of  providing revenue for construction and operation of port facilities and access routes…”; reduce barriers to foreign ownership, operation and investment in the transportation industry, “particularly maritime and aviation…”
  • Expand the capability for freight system planning, project evaluation and data collection. Establish a “discrete…home for the functions of project evaluation, performance monitoring and technical assistance to state and local governments;”  develop a “continuing, comprehensive, and systematic program to monitory performance of the national freight transportation system…”

, , ,

When State Regulation is Invasive

In Federal Government on September 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Non-indigenous species carried in ballast water (graphic by Patterson Clark of the WPost)

Non-indigenous species carried in ballast water (graphic by Patterson Clark of the WPost)

The Coast Guard issued on August 28th a proposed rule for the regulation of ballast water discharges (BWD).  This is the Nagging Problem (NP) that has plagued the maritime sector, particularly vessel operators.  That problem is both the habitat devastation caused by non-indigenous aquatic species unwittingly carried here from foreign ports and the  patchwork of regulation that can confound those responsible for ships in commerce.

Two Federal agencies claim jurisdiction.  The EPA does, per the Clean Water Act, and through that several states  exercise delegated authority to protect their waters.   So states like California, Michigan, Washington, and New York set their own requirements for vessels to meet.

But the vessels in question don’t just putter around Lake Erie, so to speak.  They transit international waters in international commerce and call in multiple ports.  The proposed Coast Guard rule takes a national approach with an international foundation for starters.  The proposed regs  would establish a standard for allowable concentrations of organisms in BWD.  The standard and schedule are consistent with the applicable IMO convention.  In the next decade, the standard would tighten significantly–assuming you think 1000x is significant–if currently unavailable technology would become available.  (Comments on the regulations are due November 27th.)

Still, there is that other NP.  The complication of multiple standards courtesy of the states.   At present Federal law doesn’t preempt non-Federal standards though that would be a good idea.  Who is to say that the means to meet one standard can also satisfy a second or a third standard as a ship moves from port to port?  And what if the State standard isn’t…well…carefully considered?

New York’s regulation, effective 2012, will put a ship’s pilot in violation of the law if the ship, lacking a means to meet the standard, crosses New York waters (without discharging) on its way to a terminal in New Jersey.  As frustrating  is the stricter-than-IMO standard for which ships must have onboard environmental technology that has yet to be devised, not to mention shown to be safe and effective.  NYDEC does not allow for an absence of applicable technology.  Take this enlightening discussion from The Washington Post story of August 31

Steve Fisher, executive director of the American Great Lakes Ports Association, called different regulations in each state a “nightmare scenario.” He said current technology cannot meet New York’s standards, which are 100 times stronger than the IMO treaty, and he expects that the state will have to close ports or relax its rules.

Jim Tierney, assistant commissioner for water resources at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, disagreed. “It’s not that hard to kill things,” he said. “You can heat them up, crush them, pressurize them, put a chemical on them. We think this is a problem that can be solved in a very economical fashion.”

Well, there ya go, naval architects, biologists and others who have been working this question for a good many years.  Maybe it’s not so difficult after all.  Maybe just a big hammer, goggles, and a trash bag will get ‘er done.   Pbea

, , ,

The Grass is Greener – Pt.1

In Federal Government on August 19, 2009 at 11:23 pm

Envy is a perfectly serviceable starting point for developing national transportation policy.  Our new high-speed rail program is an apt example.  It’s a Euro-inspired, greenish gleam in a candidate’s eye made billion-dollar real by our new president and the stimulus package.  While we wait for our first bullet-ride to Disney World or Albany let’s consider what the national transportation policies of other countries are accomplishing. We will start with our friends to the north who want Canada to be the continent’s gateway.   To Memphis.

Canada Gateways

The Canada’s Gateways program is impressive.  Watching a visiting transportation official give a presentation on it is like listening to a nice kid tell of his elegant plan to steal your lunch.  As he speaks it sinks in that you will go hungry that day; you slowly grasp your trumpet case to make sure he doesn’t walk away with it also.  The adult response is to admire the strategic thinking and implementation…while watching one’s lunch walk away.

The Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative is especially impressive. Short Pacific crossings by Asian cargo to new and expanded ports.  Then double stacked boxes onto improved CN and CP freight lines that run down to the American Midwest and Mississippi corridor.  Public and private money.  Public and private roles.  One national strategy.

And here’s something to make you reach for the pink stuff:  the still young Port of Prince Rupert just posted a 124% increase in containers (1st half 2009 over 1st half 2008) in one of the worst global economies ever.   That it only handled under 100,000 TEUs in these 6 months is of little consolation to US Pacific ports who face an efficient rail corridor to the north and a new canal corridor to open in Panama.

Freight stakeholders in the U.S. are pressing decision makers in Washington and gateway states to adopt favorable gateways and corridors policies to address national goods movement needs on all coasts.  Lucky for them inspiration is just a mouse click away in the federal role discussion on the “Canada’s Gateways” website.

“Coherent action requires a systems-based approach, and real partnerships with provincial governments and the private sector. Success will depend upon how well the key players — public and private — coalesce around a coherent vision. A key factor in the successful development of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative was the extent to which a stakeholder- driven consensus had taken shape over a number of years.  ….  Actions should complement current market-oriented transportation policies, with governments creating a positive climate for private investment in gateway infrastructure, while safeguarding the public interest.”

Pbea